Statement by Arundhati Roy

7th March 2002

I stand by what I have said in my Affidavit and I have served the
sentence which the Supreme Court imposed on me. Anybody who thinks that
the punishment for my supposed 'crime' was a symbolic one day in prison
and a fine of two thousand rupees, is wrong. The punishment began over a
year ago when notice was issued to me to appear personally in Court over
a ludicrous charge which the Supreme Court itself held should never have
been entertained. In India, everybody knows that as far as the legal
system is concerned, the process is part of the punishment.

I spent a night in prison, trying to decide whether to pay the fine or
serve out a 3-month sentence instead. Paying the fine does not in any
way mean that I have apologized or accepted the judgement. I decided
that paying the fine was the correct thing to do, because I have made
the point I was trying to make. To take it further would be to make
myself into a martyr for a cause that is not mine alone. It is for
India's free Press to fight to patrol the boundaries of its freedom
which the law of Contempt, as it stands today, severely restricts and
threatens. I hope that battle will be joined.

If not, in the course of this last year, I would have fought only for
my own dignity, for my own right as an Indian citizen to look the
Supreme Court of India in the eye and say, "I insist on the right to
comment on the Court and to disagree with it." That would be
considerably less than what I hope this fight is all about. It's not
perfect, but it'll have to do.

There are parts of the Judgement which would have been deeply reassuring
if it weren't for the fact that citizens of India, on a daily basis,
have just the opposite experience - "Rule of Law is the basic rule of
governance of any civilised, democratic polity... Whoever the person may
be, however high he or she is, no one is above the law notwithstanding
however powerful and how rich he or she may be".
If only!

The Judgement goes on to say "after more than half a century of
Independence, the Judiciary in the country is under constant threat and
being endangered from within and without". If this is true, would the
way to deal with it be to do some honest introspection or to silence its
critics by exercising the power of Contempt?

Let me remind you of the paragraphs in my Affidavit which were held to
constitute criminal contempt of court, that undermined the authority of
the Judiciary and brought it into disrepute.

"On the grounds that judges of the Supreme Court were too busy, the
Chief Justice of India refused to allow a sitting judge to head the
judicial enquiry into the Tehelka scandal, even though it involves
matters of national security and corruption in the highest places.
Yet, when it comes to an absurd, despicable, entirely unsubstantiated
petition in which all the three respondents happen to be people who have
publicly, though in markedly different ways, questioned the policies
of the government and severely criticized a recent judgement of the
Supreme Court, the Court displays a disturbing willingness to issue
notice.
It indicates a disquieting inclination on the part of the court to
silence criticism and muzzle dissent, to harass and intimidate those who
disagree with it. By entertaining a petition based on an FIR that even a
local police station does not see fit to act upon, the Supreme Court is
doing its own reputation and credibility considerable harm."

On the 23rd of December 2001, the Chief Justice of India, in an
Inaugural Address to a National Legal Workshop in Kerala, said that 20%
of the Judges in this country across the board may be corrupt, and that
they bring the entire Judiciary into disrepute. But of course this did
not constitute Criminal Contempt.

Now let me read you what a former Law Minister said in a public speech
some time ago: "The Supreme Court, composed of the elements of the elite
class, had their unconcealed sympathy for the Haves i.e. the
zamindars---anti-social elements i.e. FERA violators, bride-burners and
a whole horde of reactionaries, have found their haven in the Supreme
Court."

In this judgement, the Court says that the Law Minister's statement was
permissible because "the criticism of the judicial system was made by a
person who himself had been the judge of the High Court and was the
Minister at the relevant time."

However, they go on to say that "all citizens cannot be permitted to
comment upon the conduct of the Courts in the name of fair criticism,
which if not checked, would destroy the institution itself". In other
words, it is not just WHAT you say, nor its correctness or
justification, but WHO SAYS IT, which determines whether or not it
constitutes criminal contempt. In other words, the assertion contained
in the beginning of this judgement, namely: "whoever the person may be,
however high he or she is, no one is above the law notwithstanding how
powerful or how rich he or she might be", is contradicted by the
judgement itself.

I wish to reiterate that I believe that the Supreme Court of India is an
extremely important institution and has made some enlightened
judgements. For an individual to argue with the Court, does not in any
way imply that he or she is undermining the whole institution. On the
contrary, it means that he or she has a stake in this society and cares
about the role and efficacy of that institution. Today, the Supreme
Court makes decisions that affect, for better or for worse - the lives
of millions of common citizens. To deny comment and criticism of this
institution, on pain of criminal contempt, from all but an exclusive
club of 'experts', would, I think, be destructive of the democratic
principles on which our constitution is based.

The judiciary in India is possibly the most powerful institution in the
country, and as the Chief Justice recently implied, the least
accountable. In fact, the only accountability of this institution is
that it can be subjected to comment and criticism by citizens in
general. If even this right is denied, it would expose the country to
the dangers of judicial tyranny.

I was also puzzled by the statement in the judgement that says:
"...showing the magnanimity of Law, by keeping in mind that the
respondent is a woman, and hoping that better sense and wisdom shall
dawn upon the respondent..." Surely, women can do without this kind of
inverse discrimination.

Lastly, I wish to point out that the Judgement says that I have drifted
away "from the path on which she was traversing by contributing to the
Art and Literature". I hope this does not mean that on top of everything
else, from now on writers will have to look to the Supreme Court of
India to define the correct path of Art and Literature.